Yi-Ping Huang1, Wei-ran Li2. 1. a PhD student, Department of Orthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China. 2. b Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To correlate the objective cephalometric measurements with subjective facial esthetics in patients with bimaxillary protrusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 60 Asian-Chinese patients with bimaxillary protrusion who met the inclusion criteria. The facial esthetics of posttreatment profile and the change of profile on standardized lateral photographs were rated by a panel of 10 orthodontists and a panel of 10 lay persons with bimaxillary protrusion. All of the pretreatment and posttreatment cephalograms were digitized and traced. Twenty-five cephalometric measurements were constructed and analyzed. Correlations between the subjective facial esthetic scores and each cephalometric measurement were evaluated. RESULTS: The cephalometric measurements correlated with the facial esthetic scores of posttreatment profile given by the orthodontist and the lay persons were basically the same. For the evaluation of posttreatment profile in bimaxillary protrusion patients, the upper and lower lip to E-line, upper and lower incisor tip to AP plane, Pg-NB distance, mentolabial angle, and sulcus depth correlated significantly with the esthetic score. For the evaluation of profile change during orthodontic treatment, retraction of upper incisor relative to AP plane or the perpendicular line through sella (line Y), change of upper incisor inclination, change of mentolabial sulcus depth, and retraction of lips relative to E-line were correlated positively with the esthetic value. CONCLUSIONS: Cephalometric measurements of lip position, incisor position, and chin morphology were key parameters correlated to facial esthetics.
OBJECTIVE: To correlate the objective cephalometric measurements with subjective facial esthetics in patients with bimaxillary protrusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 60 Asian-Chinese patients with bimaxillary protrusion who met the inclusion criteria. The facial esthetics of posttreatment profile and the change of profile on standardized lateral photographs were rated by a panel of 10 orthodontists and a panel of 10 lay persons with bimaxillary protrusion. All of the pretreatment and posttreatment cephalograms were digitized and traced. Twenty-five cephalometric measurements were constructed and analyzed. Correlations between the subjective facial esthetic scores and each cephalometric measurement were evaluated. RESULTS: The cephalometric measurements correlated with the facial esthetic scores of posttreatment profile given by the orthodontist and the lay persons were basically the same. For the evaluation of posttreatment profile in bimaxillary protrusion patients, the upper and lower lip to E-line, upper and lower incisor tip to AP plane, Pg-NB distance, mentolabial angle, and sulcus depth correlated significantly with the esthetic score. For the evaluation of profile change during orthodontic treatment, retraction of upper incisor relative to AP plane or the perpendicular line through sella (line Y), change of upper incisor inclination, change of mentolabial sulcus depth, and retraction of lips relative to E-line were correlated positively with the esthetic value. CONCLUSIONS: Cephalometric measurements of lip position, incisor position, and chin morphology were key parameters correlated to facial esthetics.